Another I hate Australia thread
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
If it is so suck and use only in warning shots then why it is so commonly put use for defense, jeeps and armour vehicles ?
Commonly placed does not mean it is useful.Every RSN ship has at least 2 .5MGs. But I haven't heard anybody saying good things about it yet.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Commonly placed does not mean it is useful.Every RSN ship has at least 2 .5MGs. But I haven't heard anybody saying good things about it yet.
If it is common - that mean it is cheap, effective. It is not dependent on electric or mechanical system to operate like 76mm & 25mm, does not add on weight and take up space.
Unlike the 76mm or 25mm which is over penerating and not suitable around crowded harbours ..... !
Even Aust Navy use 0.5 for their ship as their secondary defense for anti-boats - here is the prove of it !!!
Even the US navy and other navy also using it as the 2 row below :
Primary or secondary weapon on a naval patrol boat.
Secondary weapon for anti-boat defense on naval destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers.Seem like evey navy is happy and confident that it can do its job !!!
-
I guess its a weapon that really depends on the skill of the operator? Its not easy to hit a fast moving target the size of a speedboat on a ship thats bobbing up and down on the water's surface.
-
Well, we can't use a 76mm warning shot for a sampan can we?
I won't say that the .5MG is completely useless, but I have to admit it is difficult to aim.
With regards to your 1st sentence, the cheap part over-rides the effective part.
-
Hi, my first post here. This is a v interesting thread. I'm from Oz and I think I can clear up some issues.
1. Lionnoisy is an idiot who's probably still in his teens and doesn't know anything military about from video games and the news. I'm impressed with SG Tyrannosaur's level of knowledge.
2. The Collins Class SSK is noisy and has heaps of problems. In Oz, we prefer that the rest of the world thinks this is the case. ;) It gives us the element of surprise. Besides this point, it is the largest SSK in the world at over 3000 tons displacement with the same combat system as the Virginia SSN. It is armed with ADCAPS and is fitted for special forces. There is discussion of fitting Tomahawk capability.
3. A smart country only spends what is neccessary for effective defence and not a penny more. A lot of teenage boys are obsessed with large military forces when clearly the country doesn't need it. For example Singapore doesn't need an aircraft carrier.
4. Taking into account point 3, you can't compare SG's navy to Aust's navy. We're a blue water navy because we have to be with so much ocean. SG is a green or brown water navy because it only has to defend itself from Malaysia and Indonesia. There is no open ocean to consider.
5. Lionnoisy claims that Australia has only 10 ships defending its borders. Have you heard of JORN? With JORN we don't need to have ships physically there for defence. We have electronic "eyes" scanning our borders all the way up to Singapore Harbour and possibly to Hong Kong.
6. Apart from SE Asia, the corvette platform is a redundant platform. Outside SE Asia's islands, the corvette is ineffective. Australia chooses to have large ships instead of smaller ones like SG, even though SG may have a larger number of ships.
7. Australia's future navy is looking very good and Lionnoisy should be aware of this since even the news is reporting it.
2 LHD @ 27000 tons, 1 RoRo ship ( to be ordered by 2010), 3+1 Aegis Destroyers @ 6250 tons, 8 Anzac Frigates @ 3600 tons, 6 Minehunters, 6 Collins Class Subs, 14 Armidale Patrol Boats.
SG has 6 Formidables? @ 3200 tons. Please lionnoisy, get a brain, SG navy more than kicks Malaysia's, but Australia is a Top 10-15 Navy.
-
If it is common - that mean it is cheap, effective. It is not dependent on electric or mechanical system to operate like 76mm & 25mm, does not add on weight and take up space.
Unlike the 76mm or 25mm which is over penerating and not suitable around crowded harbours ..... !
I think you've mixed up cheap and effective here.
.50cal is the last ditch option if everything else has failed, but it should not be your primary weapon for engaging targets. Navies keep it because it still has its uses where other weapons are better saved (aka. warning shots on illegal shipping and the like). But if you are going for the kill, you're going to need something that can stop them with one hit, like an explosive 25mm round.
It is a non-powered, crew operated platform which means that how good the system is relies on the operator. But in high sea states and heavy manuvering trying to aim that multi-kilo gun becomes something that is more chance then intention.
25mm does not overpenetrate unless it has an AP load, common HE or the like will fragment on impact, causing damage mainly to the target. It has a hard kill radius that will take many .50 cal to cover, hence it's popularity and it starting to replace even unpowered .50 mounts.
And I can understand 76mm posing a risk to nearby traffic, but 25mm? Unless it's the Singapore River Raft race, it's more then suitable for use in our waters.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I think you've mixed up cheap and effective here.
.50cal is the last ditch option if everything else has failed, but it should not be your primary weapon for engaging targets. Navies keep it because it still has its uses where other weapons are better saved (aka. warning shots on illegal shipping and the like). But if you are going for the kill, you're going to need something that can stop them with one hit, like an explosive 25mm round.
It is a non-powered, crew operated platform which means that how good the system is relies on the operator. But in high sea states and heavy manuvering trying to aim that multi-kilo gun becomes something that is more chance then intention.
25mm does not overpenetrate unless it has an AP load, common HE or the like will fragment on impact, causing damage mainly to the target. It has a hard kill radius that will take many .50 cal to cover, hence it's popularity and it starting to replace even unpowered .50 mounts.
And I can understand 76mm posing a risk to nearby traffic, but 25mm? Unless it's the Singapore River Raft race, it's more then suitable for use in our waters.
You nailed it, smart guy! -
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I think you've mixed up cheap and effective here.
.50cal is the last ditch option if everything else has failed, but it should not be your primary weapon for engaging targets. Navies keep it because it still has its uses where other weapons are better saved (aka. warning shots on illegal shipping and the like). But if you are going for the kill, you're going to need something that can stop them with one hit, like an explosive 25mm round.
It is a non-powered, crew operated platform which means that how good the system is relies on the operator. But in high sea states and heavy manuvering trying to aim that multi-kilo gun becomes something that is more chance then intention.
25mm does not overpenetrate unless it has an AP load, common HE or the like will fragment on impact, causing damage mainly to the target. It has a hard kill radius that will take many .50 cal to cover, hence it's popularity and it starting to replace even unpowered .50 mounts.
And I can understand 76mm posing a risk to nearby traffic, but 25mm? Unless it's the Singapore River Raft race, it's more then suitable for use in our waters.
What you quoted was a MK-38 25mm. Which you nailed a little too left .
You say that it was non-powered
I stop to wonder - how in the world can a 25mm which would be logically would be a lot harder to control and shoot then the 0.5 ..... would even hit any target thus no way it is non-powered - it must be electrical or some mechanical system involved.
Yep after reading around - confirm that you are wrong on the non-power !
The fact is - it is externally powered !
The 25mm is controlable to shoot is because - it need electicity - it does not depend on gases for operation but instead utilizes an electric motor, located in the receiver, to drive all the moving parts inside the cannon. Ammunition feeding, loading and firing, extraction, and ejection are all done by the motor.
Thus the weakness for it is - it need electicity & also more parts = more can go wrong !
As for your statement - high sea state ? if you got high sea state that mean you are at open sea, better off using your primary weapon - 76mm instead. The 76mm can can even hit high speed missiles !!! By the way the 76mm round can be fragment type which is area target per round - definitity will have a better chance then 25mm manual control in rough sea . The 76mm is not a slow gun (85 round per minute), more then fast enough to shoot the whole fleet of speedboat.
I do not think 0.5 will be replace with 25mm - which as secondary weapon - I bet a lot of navy still prefer their secondary weapon to be more reliable - with less parts + not dependent on electricity. -
Originally posted by storywolf:
What you quoted was a MK-38 25mm.
Maybe you too happy lion shooting that you forgot to stop to wonder about the 25mm which would be logically would be a lot harder to control and shoot then the 0.5 ..... which by logical very hard to hit the target - unless there is mistake in your assumption ..... " no-power" !
The truth is - it is externally powered ! You better be paying PUB ! if you want to even shoot a single round !
The 25mm is controlable to shoot is because - it need electicity - it does not depend on gases for operation but instead utilizes an electric motor, located in the receiver, to drive all the moving parts inside the cannon. Ammunition feeding, loading and firing, extraction, and ejection are all done by the motor.
Thus the weakness for it is - it need electicity & also more parts = more can go wrong !
As for your statement - high sea state ? if you got high sea state that mean you are at open sea, better off using your primary weapon - 76mm instead. The 76mm can can even hit high speed missiles !!! By the way the 76mm round can be fragment type which is area target per round - definitity will have a better chance then 25mm manual control in rough sea . Any 85 round per minute, more then fast enough to shoot the whole fleet of speedboat.
I do not think 0.5 will be replace with 25mm - which as secondary weapon - I bet a lot of navy still prefer their secondary weapon to be more reliable - with less parts + not dependent on electricity.
I prefer to place my bet with guns like the Phalanx CIWS.Of course I'm not saying you're wrong, it is really a matter of situation and opinions.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
I prefer to place my bet with guns like the Phalanx CIWS.Of course I'm not saying you're wrong, it is really a matter of situation and opinions.
I rather say it depends on the need ! - For bigger boats yep 25mm would be better ......
But anything corvette and below which weight,cost & area to defend (small) ..... 0.5 should be more suitable.
I suggest that you don't place your bet with Phalanx CIWS, place instead with its replacement RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) :) don't worry 21 missile in the standard laucher -more then enough :)
-
.5 mG are very usefull in a ship or boat boarding mission..thats about it. in fact that is the main reason it was installed in the first place. 25mm are questionable especialy if the suspected boat or ship were in a very close proximity.
But if the suspected boat try to run away ..then the 25mm came in handy.
-
Some worthy points to note is that .5MGs are slated to be replaced by the 20mm Typhoon in the RSN over the years. Gone will be the days of the bravo gunners.
Some ships are already operating this gun and it has undergone trials with the LST when they are deployed to the Gulf.
-
I think the Typhoon will fare well, being a stabilized gun system. Being able to remotely fire it is definitely a plus as well. Don't need to have that many gunners on board.
Oh, welcomed to sgforums, AsianAussie. Don't mind Lionnoisy. =D
-
Originally posted by storywolf:
What you quoted was a MK-38 25mm. Which you nailed a little too left .
You say that it was non-powered
I stop to wonder - how in the world can a 25mm which would be logically would be a lot harder to control and shoot then the 0.5 ..... would even hit any target thus no way it is non-powered - it must be electrical or some mechanical system involved.
Yep after reading around - confirm that you are wrong on the non-power !
The fact is - it is externally powered !
The 25mm is controlable to shoot is because - it need electicity - it does not depend on gases for operation but instead utilizes an electric motor, located in the receiver, to drive all the moving parts inside the cannon. Ammunition feeding, loading and firing, extraction, and ejection are all done by the motor.
Thus the weakness for it is - it need electicity & also more parts = more can go wrong !
As for your statement - high sea state ? if you got high sea state that mean you are at open sea, better off using your primary weapon - 76mm instead. The 76mm can can even hit high speed missiles !!! By the way the 76mm round can be fragment type which is area target per round - definitity will have a better chance then 25mm manual control in rough sea . The 76mm is not a slow gun (85 round per minute), more then fast enough to shoot the whole fleet of speedboat.
I do not think 0.5 will be replace with 25mm - which as secondary weapon - I bet a lot of navy still prefer their secondary weapon to be more reliable - with less parts + not dependent on electricity.LOL
I didn't say it was non powered, I said it was starting to replace unpowered mounts as point defence. And well, I am not entirely sure the need for electricty and moving parts is a weakness... it is milspec and is it not?It's kinda like saying a Harpoon ASM launcher is not as useful as a 16inch Iowa gun for modern naval ship to ship combat because it is more "techy" and prone to failing.
The thing is that I wager the .50 will probably still eke out a living as the last-ditch of last-ditch weapon or maybe as I said, for roles in which 25mm would be a waste (such as covering a boarding action or warning shots against really small craft). But it's actual use in battle, even in point defence is greatly limited, that's why for REAL point defence you're gonna opt for something like 25mm. It's just the reality of things.
As for the 76mm hitting missiles, I believe the idea is you're pretty screwed if you have to resort to that.
The history of AA gunnery has shown that even with much higher rates of fire with similar calibers against much slower and larger manned aircraft even with computer aided gunnery the shootdown rates have been low for rounds fired. I suspect CIWS would be a far better bet, though RAM or Alegis would be best. The Pk of the 76mm against ASMs is too low for it to be a anything more then last ditch. Imagine more then one missile is fired and things become worse.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
LOL
I didn't say it was non powered, I said it was starting to replace unpowered mounts as point defence. And well, I am not entirely sure the need for electricty and moving parts is a weakness... it is milspec and is it not?It's kinda like saying a Harpoon ASM launcher is not as useful as a 16inch Iowa gun for modern naval ship to ship combat because it is more "techy" and prone to failing.
The thing is that I wager the .50 will probably still eke out a living as the last-ditch of last-ditch weapon or maybe as I said, for roles in which 25mm would be a waste (such as covering a boarding action or warning shots against really small craft). But it's actual use in battle, even in point defence is greatly limited, that's why for REAL point defence you're gonna opt for something like 25mm. It's just the reality of things.
As for the 76mm hitting missiles, I believe the idea is you're pretty screwed if you have to resort to that.
The history of AA gunnery has shown that even with much higher rates of fire with similar calibers against much slower and larger manned aircraft even with computer aided gunnery the shootdown rates have been low for rounds fired. I suspect CIWS would be a far better bet, though RAM or Alegis would be best. The Pk of the 76mm against ASMs is too low for it to be a anything more then last ditch. Imagine more then one missile is fired and things become worse.
Well all depends on what you use it for - if you want mass shore bombardment - think 16inch gun will still out do harpoon.
I think you have to consider the size of the boat also, instead just blindly install 25mm . If a covertte or missile gunboat - 0.5 is enough.If you try to shoot 25mm at a missile - you are pretty screwed also, in fact the best is to decoy it away .
Anyway CIWS - idea is to put up a wall to take down the missile - to you may be 25mm shoot out more bullets to form that wall. But there are another thoughts that use the 76mm which shoot out a few fragments rounds which due to the fragements - actually is as effective throwing out a wall as effective ........ Even with 76mm at 85rds per minute - it sure can throw out a few walls ...to handle mutiple missiles ... infact it is computer targeted, would do better then your manual 25mm.
-
I think you have to consider the size of the boat also, instead just blindly install 25mm . If a covertte or missile gunboat - 0.5 is enough.
AFAIK, even smaller craft that are 150-200 tons already sport the 25mm as their main weapon and the 0.5 as backups. It all depends on what you want to carry.
But yes, 0.5cal is bad for point defence if a suicide speedboat is trying to ram you.
If you try to shoot 25mm at a missile - you are pretty screwed also, in fact the best is to decoy it away .
I don't think the idea of the 25mm mount was to shoot down missiles in the first place, the point is- versus the supposed threat of small terror fastcraft that it'll probably be a more practical weapon then the 0.5cal or 76mm in striking the sweet spot between firepower and what's practical.
But there are another thoughts that use the 76mm which shoot out a few fragments rounds which due to the fragements - actually is as effective throwing out a wall as effective ........ Even with 76mm at 85rds per minute - it sure can throw out a few walls ...to handle mutiple missiles ... infact it is computer targeted, would do better then your manual 25mm.
As I would believe that idea has been mooted by the actual practice of AA use in history. Even with computer controlled AA gunnery spewing out similar caliber rounds fragmenting all over the sky the kill rate is actually very low even against much larger, and slower aircraft. This is proven by the concept of Wild Weasel when HARMs are fed to radar-directed antiaircraft arty sites, and I doubt shooting down the missiles were considered a useful tactic.
And hmm, the 25mm can be put on a powered mount as well, and as I said it's I don't think it'll be used (effectively anyway) for anti missile defence. As you said, decoy or hard kill.
All in all I doubt any naval mount, 76 or what, will fare well against modern ASMs at all, that's what your RAMs, decoys and jamming is for.
-
SgTrex, I think the current explored option is to co-axially mount the .50 cal with the Typhoon. It really has a wide arc of engagement.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
SgTrex, I think the current explored option is to co-axially mount the .50 cal with the Typhoon. It really has a wide arc of engagement.
Lol, whatever rocks their boat- no pun intended. As long as our sailors do not find themselves with the wrong tools for the job.
-
Strangely enough....the .5MG is not really a 'last-dtich' weapon, in fact it is a primary weapon against small sea-borne crafts. Clearly it still fills a niche area, where it can provide warning shots and fire and against light-armoured small crafts.
But indeed, it is a last-ditch thing against air-borne targets.
As for the 20mm Typhoon, it seems that this gun has a gyro system that allows the gun to remain trained on the target regardless of sea conditions, something like the 76mm, except I believe the auto-stabilisation system would react faster.
And just to check with you guys, is it true that the .5MGs mounted on tanks in the army are remote-controlled?
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Strangely enough....the .5MG is not really a 'last-dtich' weapon, in fact it is a primary weapon against small sea-borne crafts. Clearly it still fills a niche area, where it can provide warning shots and fire and against light-armoured small crafts.
But indeed, it is a last-ditch thing against air-borne targets.
As for the 20mm Typhoon, it seems that this gun has a gyro system that allows the gun to remain trained on the target regardless of sea conditions, something like the 76mm, except I believe the auto-stabilisation system would react faster.
And just to check with you guys, is it true that the .5MGs mounted on tanks in the army are remote-controlled?
Our army does not use .50cal as a commander or loader's machine gun, we use the 7.62mm I think.The .50 are turret mounted.
For other armies they might use remote systems for the .50cal.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Strangely enough....the .5MG is not really a 'last-dtich' weapon, in fact it is a primary weapon against small sea-borne crafts. Clearly it still fills a niche area, where it can provide warning shots and fire and against light-armoured small crafts.
But indeed, it is a last-ditch thing against air-borne targets.
As for the 20mm Typhoon, it seems that this gun has a gyro system that allows the gun to remain trained on the target regardless of sea conditions, something like the 76mm, except I believe the auto-stabilisation system would react faster.
And just to check with you guys, is it true that the .5MGs mounted on tanks in the army are remote-controlled?
Partially correct. There is a variant of the Overhead weapon station that uses a 25mm bushmaster. Not sure whether the 40/50 uses that. Any Tankees here? -
If you are talking Ultra, the 40/50 is iron sight. No ROWS for 40/50 on Ultra.
the OWSs comes with a GPMG as coaxial.
SM1 is GPMG coaxial + GPMG commander
-
''HMAS Waller enters Sydney Harbour for exercise preperations at Fleet Base East, prior to departing for Hawaii. Picture: Oz Defence Department''
Due to ever--lasting ''upgrading'' and crew shortage,
only Oz 3 subs are ready sail to seas.
But I am suprised their area of responsibilty is the globe!!
How can the 3 operationally ready subs protecting Oz and at the same
time sailing in Asia and Pacific waters?
Amazing!Looks like SG has too many subs.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23867866-31477,00.html
The navy has a 37 per cent shortfall in submariners and only has enough crews to operate three of the six Collins-class submarines...
Sometimes their secret sailing schedules take them around the world but usually they spend their time in the regional waters of Asia and the Pacific.
-
When the September 11 terror attacks occurred in 2001, initial disbelief was quashed when the navy ordered Dechaineux to remain where it was in the South China sea for 24 hours until the situation became clearer. The crew saw footage of the attacks six weeks later.
Oh.It is interesting .They returned to shore 6 weeks after Sept 11. -
What is interesting is that you're still at it despite being beaten so badly the last time round.
Sigh, some people never learn...
How can the 3 operationally ready subs protecting Oz and at the same
time sailing in Asia and Pacific waters?
What is your idea of protecting Oz with submarines? With 18,000 miles of coastline? That they have to sail constantly around australia and hope they run into something bad by luck?
Even the USN would be unable of such a task, something that we already pointed out and that you kept quiet.
But now it seems you are trying to either revive old arguments, or simply learnt nothing from there.
Let me answer you from an old post:
You seem to have this fantasy that a fleet of multi thousand ton ships can just teleport out of nowhere across thousands of miles of ocean and surprise the Australian navy without getting picked up by radar or sonar or other forms of sensors when such a journey will take days and leave plentry of time to get detected and having actions taken by the right kind of naval unit long before they even come close to Australian waters.
What that can suddenly happen anyday is the small, terror suicide boat that the PV is designed to handle that our current navy and coastguard cannot effectively, an Iowa class battleship is not going to "anyday, happen to be around". You might as well say 15,000 enemy tanks "anyday, happen to be around" Orchird road.
This is not surprising given your inline skates, F-18s off LHDs and crashing Fantail ideas all defy good common sense.
Going by your logic, you might as well say that our Primus is useless and has no role because it is totally defenceless if an MBT suddenly teleported next to it and the closest help is too far away.
Going by your logic you might as well say we shouldn't have people doing guard duty because all they have is a SAR-21 and 5 rounds because what if a Gundam suddenly show up?
Going by your logic, you might as well say we have to use Leopard 2s to do guard duty